"Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said the drop in teen pregnancy in Milwaukee happened before the implementation of the 2009 Healthy YouthAct and said it was likely caused by members of the clergy and parents’ request for abstinence-only education".

The answer is in the article "This effectively repeals former Gov. Jim Doyle’s 2009 Healthy Youth Act that required schools with sex education programs to teach about safe sex practices."

But what does "schools with sex education programs" mean? It sounds like Wisconsin schools don't actually need to have sex education programs. But if they do, they can only teach one thing.

I like giving local school boards control over their curriculum but I hope all local school boards figure out some better use of students time.

State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said supporters of the bill do not understand today’s sexually proficient youth culture. By allowing schools to take an abstinence-only approach to sex education, Risser said teachers will not need to not tell the truth.

Again, a school doesn't have to teach sex education at all, right? The "no approach to sex education" was always an option.

p.s. Fred Risser is 84 years old. You gotta love the old man who thinks he's plugged the youth culture. All it takes is a nudge of the frame and the concerned liberal turns into the reactionary crank complaining about "those kids today."

Sex education as a panacea for out of wedlock births and venereal disease has failed utterly.

Takes an idiot like garbage to fail to notice this.

Decades of sex education have been accompanied by an astonishing increase in the number of out of wedlock births (up to 70% in black communities), and equally astonishing increases in the prevalence of VD.

But, idiots like garbage keep insisting that the problem is that the right people haven't been in charge, that more money must be spend and that even more control should be wrested from parents and ceded to schools.

A classic case of liberal stupidity.

The clear evidence of failure in the instance of social engineering cannot be admitted into evidence. All that matters is the stupidity of good intentions.

The problem here is that the public school systems have taken upon themselves the teaching of sex ed, and the way that they teach it appears to have become ever more egregiously indoctrination.

Maybe I am of an older generation, but sex ed is something that I think should be taught by the parents, not the teachers. And, yes, this was a small part of why I spent all that money to send my kid to private school. So, again, why, if a lot of the students are graduating functionally illiterate, are they spending valuable class time on what looks more like indoctrination than the three R's?

"State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said supporters of the bill do not understand today’s sexually proficient youth culture. By allowing schools to take an abstinence-only approach to sex education, Risser said teachers will not need to not tell the truth."

"Sexually proficient" is the journalist's paraphrase. I think it's a hilarious phrase. "Proficient"... it's like what they'd say about students who can read at or above their grade level. What would the corresponding capability be with respect to sex?!

Do you consider yourself "sexually proficient"? Answering that question, exactly what are you thinking about?

I think everyone is missing the issue here, that the Democrats think that they know better than parents and local school boards what's best for their kids and students.

Trust me, Milwaukee will not change a thing. And young girls will still have kids, with baby daddies that will not help support them, and the cycle of certain poverty (and future Democratic voters looking for handouts) will not be broken. The "plantation" will survive.

Sex education offered by the schools should be concerned only with relating in a neutral manner the biological facts related to human sexual behavior, including the means of preventing unwanted conception and the transmission of STDs.

It is the responsibility of the parents to provide whatever morals-based teaching regarding sexual activity as they deem necessary and preferred.

Maybe I am of an older generation, but sex ed is something that I think should be taught by the parents, not the teachers.

My first sex ed class was in sixth grade back around 1980. We were taught very blandly the biology of how it works and what puberty was. That's it.

What my nieces and nephews have been taught, though, goes far, far beyond the simply biological and into value judgements. The common ground should be education on the biological aspects and allow the schools to choose the rest and/or leave it up to the parents.

The clear evidence of failure in the instance of social engineering cannot be admitted into evidence. All that matters is the stupidity of good intentions.

Did you even read the piece you raging idiot? Even Grothman agrees teen pregnancies have dropped significantly since implementation of the Healthy Youth Act. Do you honestly think Grothman is right that it can be attributed to clergy and parents requesting abstinence-only education? Honestly I don't think you could find your ass with both hands.

Most research shows that no sex ed program "works" in the sense of reducing teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc. This is usually reported in the NYT as "Study Shows Abstinence-Based Education Ineffective," but those who actually study the literature know that all programs are ineffective. Therefore, the legislature might as well indulge in expressive legislation, no instrumentally-driven legislation being possible.

The answer is in the article "This effectively repeals former Gov. Jim Doyle’s 2009 Healthy Youth Act that required schools with sex education programs to teach about safe sex practices."

And, I think the answer to Doyle, et al., is the question of whether any sex, under the age of, say 16-17, can be safe, physically, and not result in long term physical effects, at least to the girls involved. And, there is some evidence, apparently, that girls quit maturing mentally when they start having sex, if underage.

I don't know how much of these dangers are real, and how much they are imagined. But, I would suggest that there is more evidence and the reasoning is more credible there than for AGW.

So, can we afford to sacrifice the physical and mental health of a generation or two of our children on the chance that their isn't a physical and mental danger here to the kids, and, esp. to the girls, of pushing sex too early on them? If the educrats are wrong, what is our recourse? There isn't one - too bad, so sad, the school districts and the educrats are protected from suit by sovereign immunity.

If the goal is to reduce teenage pregnancy then eliminating teenagers from any pregnancy related welfare will radically curb teenage pregnancies. If that isn't enough Plan B in addition would include prosecuting the girl and the father for statutory rape.That should do the trick.

"garage mahal said...Did you even read the piece you raging idiot? Even Grothman agrees teen pregnancies have dropped significantly since implementation of the Healthy Youth Act."

Actually, did you read the piece? Grothman points out that the drop occurred before the Healthy Youth Act. Here, let me help:

"Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said the drop in teen pregnancy in Milwaukee happened before the implementation of the 2009 Healthy Youth Act".

Don't worry garage, Milwaukee won't change a thing, and teen pregnancies will continue, as will the poverty that comes with it. Milwaukees inner city will remain the shithole it is today. And Madison's problems will continue to grow.

Anyone know of a reputable test of how effective sex ed is, and how effective the different approaches are? Give the world as it is, I wonder if no sex-ed at all would be better than what's going on. I wonder if the question is studied they were to find that ab-only ed is actually far more effective than any other type, if that would change their minds...

Don't worry garage, Milwaukee won't change a thing, and teen pregnancies will continue, as will the poverty that comes with it. Milwaukees inner city will remain the shithole it is today. And Madison's problems will continue to grow.

And, of course, that is precisely what the Democratic Party wants.

Dependency on the welfare dole ensures that the dependent votes Democratic.

"Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing unwanted conception and transmission of STDs."

Sure, and any course that teaches the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy or transmission of STDs would necessarily include abstinence as an option.

But this is not what those who champion "abstinence-based sex education" want. They want a morals-based plan of instruction that emphasizes abstinence as the best or only method to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

In short, they want a "Just Say No" educational program. Again, a school's program should relate all options for prevention of pregnancy and disease and the relative success rates of each, and allow the students to draw their own conclusions. If the parents want to supplement the plain biological facts of life with their preferred morals-based teaching, that is their prerogative and responsibility.

And let's face it, human beings, once sexually mature, are essentially in perpetual heat, and thus emphasizing abstinence will likely have little influence on young people who have their blood up. It would help--and be more effective--if the young people have knowledge of their other options than just not doing it.

And let's face it, human beings, once sexually mature, are essentially in perpetual heat, and thus emphasizing abstinence will likely have little influence on young people who have their blood up. It would help--and be more effective--if the young people have knowledge of their other options than just not doing it.

And, yet, Kookie, in the dark ages of no sex ed, illegitimacy was virual unknown in most white communities, and far lower in black communities.

The rates of VD were, likewise, minimal compared to those produced by the era of sex ed.

You're too much of a blockhead to see the hand in front of your face.

There are ways to control those teens in heat. Family, parental authority, religion... all those things that a fool like you is too smart to understand.

And here's where things stood in 2008 right before the Democratic legislature and governor decided they needed to step in and "solve" this terrible problem with new proscriptive legislation:Teen birth rate falls to 28-year low

You know, as much as I hate to agree with either MadMan or Cook, this is rank stupidity. Even though they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the government, the legislature should not be in the business of determining what - beyond basic biology - should be taught in schools under the all-encompassing rubric of "sex ed," going along with whatever the perversion du jour might be.

For example - my nieces (now beginning college) have been taught in grammar and high school how to roll a condom onto their lover. They have been taught about dental dams, should they decide to explore their sexual boundaries. They have been instructed in sexual preferences and positions that would, were such conversation used in a workplace, rival the Cain kerfuffle. Imagine a teacher or student from 1961 being transported to a 2011 school.

And what happens when sexual enthusiasms change? Right now, it's practically a hate crime to suggest any disapproval of a homosexual lifestyle. In 1961, it wasn't. Who is to say that in 2051 the pendulum won't have swung back? Schools should not be teaching either abstinence-only or let it all hang out, in my opinion.

And Cook, your knowledge of porn is beyond me. When you mentioned "Jamie Gillis," all I could think of was William Holden putting the moves on Gloria Swanson.

They want a morals-based plan of instruction that emphasizes abstinence as the best or only method to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

Incorrect. Lesson plans centered around abstinence that I've seen, outside private schools, concentrate on the biological facts that not having sex is the best way to not get pregnant, along with entire sections devoted to the negatives of teen and unwed pregnancy, and to not get STD's is not...to...have...sex. All of this can be done without values-based instruction.

The girls are less likely to put out if they know getting pregnant means financially they are on their own. End welfare for teenage pregnancy and the problem is largely solved. You of course can always volunteer to pay someone else's child support if you wish.

Actually, did you read the piece? Grothman points out that the drop occurred before the Healthy Youth Act. Here, let me help:

Grothman versus data:

The newness of the Healthy Youth Act limits data measuring its effectiveness, but the available statistics are favorable, especially in Milwaukee. In 2009, the teenage birth rate in the city was 41.3 births per 1,000 women, about half the rate in 2008.Link

But you don't care, you claim nothing will change, but your answer is to do nothing.

To be really "abstinence" based ... they should put teachers into empty classrooms. Claiming there would have been students. But adults chose to abstain becoming parents.

Where's the problem? Oh, about 80% of the students are too stupid to learn much beyond just tying their shoelaces. Some won't even be able to read to a degree that they could handle an employment form. Will they be credentialed?

Sure. Our "credentials" are now like sub prime mortgages. You can get them if you sign away any potential you may have to earn a living.

(And, yes. Over in Greece, the Germans are applying pressure ... so that for the next 20 years ... all "surplus" funds are sent directly to Dusseldorf.)

Nothing fails!

Politicians are making sure that NOTHING FAILS!

While living in a free world gets swallowed up.

And, kids? They know where babies come from ... even if all sex education classes are not only debunked, but unfunded.

among 15- to 17-year-old girls in Milwaukee have dropped to their lowest level in 28 years, according to data released Wednesday by public health officials.

Births declined to 50 per 1,000 girls in 2007, the lowest rate since 1979 and just over half the highest rate on record.

Garage said: "Teenage pregnancies dropping by half in a year in Mlke after the Act was implemented doesn't prove my assertion?"

No it doesn't prove your point at all.

The above is tracking BIRTHS.....not PREGNANCIES. Since abortion is freely available and often obtained without any parental notificiation and facilitated by the schools...Who knows how many pregnancies were terminated before becoming BIRTHS.

The drop in births can possibly be attributed to the liberals teaching kids how to put on condoms, but we will never know if that is the case until we know how many pregnancies ended in DEATH by abortion before they became BIRTH statistics.

Do you remember hearing how first, second, and third graders, were taught to slip condoms on bananas?

It's interesting that we see the "ocupy" crowd. All "credentialed." But with only vague ideas of how work actually adds value to anything. Nor do they know how to do it!

Missing the finer points seems to be what gets politicians to vote for crap.

Real issues scare them half to death.

Heck, if you want to teach "abstinence" ... all you need to see is how Herman Cain is falling from grace. Because he thinks, instead of the women he's paid off ... who accused him of sexual harassment. All he has to do is become a poster boy for the the crowd that says "there's no sex going on here." No. None at all.

The newness of the Healthy Youth Act limits data measuring its effectiveness, but the available statistics are favorable, especially in Milwaukee. In 2009, the teenage birth rate in the city was 41.3 births per 1,000 women, about half the rate in 2008. Link

But you don't care, you claim nothing will change, but your answer is to do nothing."

Do you read anything? First, you claimed Grothman agreed that births went down after the HCA...as I and many have pointed out, that is false. Grothman claimed it went down before.

As for my claim that nothing will change, nothing will in Milwaukee. THEY WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR PROGRAM. THE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO. THEY WILL USE THEIR CHOICE TO CONTINUE AS BEFORE.

Liberals understand that nothing undermines stability and favors the growth of the state like sex run amok. Ergo the passion for getting rid of all that fuddy duddy 19th century so-called puritanical restraint on glorious polymorphous perversity.

How much do YOU think these policies that STARTED IN 2010 affected the 2009 birth rates, Garage? ?

Yea it would help if I pasted the right paragraph that showed a further decrease from 41.3 births per 1,000 to 35.68 after HYA. I admit it looked idiotic, and I'll concede the point, no time right now.

I once taught in alternative school—high school level. One girl got pregnant two years in a row, by different guys. She brought her first child to school and was fawned over enormously by the other girls and the female teachers. Clearly, having a baby enhanced her status and encouraged her to do it again. Sex ed had nothing to do with it, except she knew how to make it happen.

You're absolutely right. We don't think you guys are all sexually proficient.

As you cannot trust in the least what the person your with has to say on the matter, the best compliment I ever received was from a fling who told a good friend of mine that our frisky play time was one of her primary "alone-time" sources for inspiration.

Ann, there is no need for ad hominems. I decided not to fuck you a long time ago, because you got married and because Meade seemed a right guy. Please do not make me regret my principled decision.

Defining "proficiency" is at the heart of the joke. In the evolutionary schema "proficiency" can only be defined as the ability to reproduce. Orgasms are irrelevant except as they facilitate reproduction. The man's orgasm is necessary, the woman's is not, to reproduce. (There is some jabber about a woman's O improving odds of conception, but whatever ;>)

So a man who can ejaculate - particularly, who can ejaculate in a woman's vagina - is proficient. Who cannot is not proficient. And frankly, from the evolutionary standpoint, faster ejaculation is adaptive.

What is female proficiency? Answer me that. I joked (you misunderstood me) that females were not proficient because they are not competent to orgasm regularly during coitus, but then again, as I reflected, it does not matter. What does a woman really have to do but lie there, to be bred?

Now of course this is all hooey - there are many women proficient at sex - as we commonly understand this notion it reflects their ability to aid the male in achieving orgasm. Unlike the reverse, this IS a valid index of proficiency, as reproduction will not occur without the male orgasm.

Anyway, it behooves women to be good at sex in order to attract and keep a male. There is really not much point in a man's ability to pleasure a female as no woman will stay with a man just because he is good at sex - money or some other such concern will always outweigh - as long as he is not completely impotent.

Oh and ugly chicks can be great lays - as a rule, they try harder and are not stuck up.

Eddutcher, plenty of teen girls are getting pregnant in families that taught abstinence. The girls are so fearful to come to their mothers regarding their sexual activities that they end up pregnant. Abstinence has never and will never be an effective means of prevention, it's been that way since the days of chastity belts.

To lighten up this profiency debate, there is a great line in the flick 50/50. The lead character has cancer and is not getting laid by his girlfriend. The Seth Rogen character asks him, "Well, you're @ least getting blow jobs aren't you?" He replies sheepishly, "She says she doesn't like it." An outraged Rogen shoots back.."Of course she doesn't like it..it's a Job..That's why they call it a blow JOB!

"Eddutcher, plenty of teen girls are getting pregnant in families that taught abstinence. The girls are so fearful to come to their mothers regarding their sexual activities that they end up pregnant."

This is only proof of something if girls in families that do not teach abstinence are not getting pregnant.

And getting an abortion doesn't make the "pregnant" status go away. It's still an abject failure of "we know you're gonna do it" sex ed.

"Don't have sex, you could get pregnant and ruin your life," wasn't a perfect message, but it was a powerful one. It also gives us a cultural base-line on how often this message failed (often enough). Take that base line and apply it to the promises of the new "we have birth control, we know you're gonna have sex, so use it" message. By any count there is far more pregnancies, far more abortions than there has ever ever been, and even with the option of the abortion "do over", there are far far more teen and out-of-wedlock births.

That girls with parents who teach abstinence give in to powerful biological urges to reproduce and then, almost certainly, have the baby for everyone to see instead of aborting it without the neighbors ever finding out what happened, is not even relevant to how, or not, modern "sex ed" performs as pregnancy prevention.

I'm pretty sure "abstinence based sex education" doesn't do a damn thing to prevent teen pregnancies or STDs but then again neither does the traditional "Slot A goes into Tab B" sex education that I got in school, so...whatever. Much ado about nothing.

Either approach is a policy and either approach is a law. One leads to unplanned pregnancies. To favor that just some because people think sexual ignorance and appeals to tradition are awesome is self-evidently ridiculous, but your inability to mount a serious argument (i.e. "being right is not a good enough reason") shows just how weak the argument for abstinence-based education is.

Also, the difference between whether we teach facts or we indoctrinate, that matters. Abstinence-based education advocates say that the normative message matters more than the facts. Teens are notorious for seeing right through the bullshit of advocacy and right into what the material facts of an argument really are.

My argument is utterly serious. I think that the threat to our liberty from people who think that, for example, bad speech doesn't count under freedom of speech, or who think that being right means it's not wrong to take away choice, is far far more serious than what some school board in some remote town might decide to do. (A side benefit of which would be having better data to compare, eventually. And it's quite probable that local cultural norms make a one-size-fits-all centralized moral planning ill advised.)

Bother to identify the impulse that has resulted in so much oppression of those who are wrong, politically, religiously, scientifically... it is the impulse and feeling of justification that Truth is more important than liberty.

Granted, if you want to ignore that and go with the surface issue, you haven't proven that sex ed done "right" gets the results that you want either. You just suppose so, that it probably does.

for the record and not advocating it in any way - but how is teen preg in the hijab/burqa community? somewhere between stoning and "do what you like" might be a livable level of social control.

Or, we could lower the age of consent. Or, encourage marriage of such people. Roll back the social programs that have facilitated single motherhood. I just think the idea of teaching sodomy, onanism or whatever (not to judge; but that's literally hat we're talking about) as alternatives to continence is absurd on its face. It's as if, instead of teaching kids not to steal or kill, you showed them how to avoid leaving fingerprints, GSR marks, hair and fiber, DNA evidence.

Just for the record: you can get to your senior prom a virgin, male or female. You can in fact get to college, male or female, a virgin; indeed, without having shared any of your mucous membranes with another. It will not kill you. You will be just fine.

Oh, and also: HPV cannot be reliably prevented by condom use, oral/anal sex, or any other techniques except abstinence, testing - and apparently males can't be tested for HPV - and now, perhaps and in certain cases only, vaccination. Many other diseases are also marginally protected against by barrier methods.

TW: I'm just sayin'. I don't want to sound like a wariabbi. But perhaps it is better to sound uncool, even to be uncool, than to suffer what in the old days would have been referred to as the wages of sin.